Out of Heaviness,
Enlightenment
NAGPRA and the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology
By Robert W. Preucel, Lucy F. Williams,
Stacey O. Espenlaub, and Janet Monge
n September 29, 2000, John Johnson of the Chugach Alaska Corporation arrived in Philadelphia to take formal possession of ancestral
Eskimo human remains and grave goods from
Prince William Sound and Kachemak Bay in
the collections of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology. This was a profoundly significant experience for him since he was finally fulfilling one of the
central wishes of his elders. They had entrusted him with the
weighty responsibility of locating their ancestors in museums
throughout the world and returning them home. After the
transfer of ownership, he escorted the remains back to Yukon
Island, Alaska where they were baptized under the Greek Orthodox Church and buried in an unmarked, mass grave. This ceremony was the denouement of a lengthy ten-year process, initiated in 1990, just prior to the passage of the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).
These human remains and grave goods were originally excavated by Dr. Frederica de Laguna in 1931 and 1932, as part of a
University Museum-sponsored research project, focusing on
the prehistory of the Chugach Eskimo people. This research was
crucial in defining the Kachemak Bay Eskimo Tradition (1880
B.C.–1100 A.D.).
The collections contain over 6,600 artifacts including hunting, fishing, and manufacturing tools; household objects; and
items of personal adornment. In the 1930s, it was common practice for anthropologists to excavate “abandoned” village sites.
Cemeteries were especially valued since burial practices were
regarded as important indicators of cultural identity. De La-
XIUQIN ZHOU
O
David Hostler (Hupa)
guna’s research was conducted under a Federal permit, and with
the assistance of Native workers, and thus was entirely consistent with the best anthropological practices of her times.
Today, there is a new appreciation of the legal rights and religious values of Native peoples due in part to the Civil Rights
Act (1964), the American Indian Movement (founded in 1968),
the Indian Civil Rights Act (1968), the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978), and now NAGPRA (1990). Since the
1960s, Indian activists have patiently asserted their rights and
interests in the proper and respectful treatment of Indian
human remains. As a result, it is now broadly accepted that the
intentional excavation of Indian burials and inadvertent discovery of burials during commercial development projects
must involve consultation with appropriate descendant communities. In addition, it is increasingly accepted that Indian
WWW.MUSEUM.UPENN.EDU/PUBLICATIONS
21
ASSOCIATED
FUNERARY OBJECTS
Objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony
of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been
placed with individual human remains either at
the time of death or later, and both the human
remains and associated funerary objects are
presently in the possession or control of a Federal
agency or museum, except that other items exclusively made for burial purposes or to contain
human remains shall be considered associated
funerary objects.
UNASSOCIATED
FUNERARY OBJECTS
Objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony
of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been
placed with individual human remains either at
the time of death or later, where the remains are
not in the possession or control of the Federal
agency or museum and the objects can be identified by a preponderance of the evidence as
related to specific individuals or families or to
known human remains or, by a preponderance of
the evidence, as having been removed from a
specific burial site of an individual culturally affiliated with a particular Indian tribe.
OBJECTS
OF CULTURAL PATRIMONY
An object having ongoing historical, traditional,
or cultural importance central to the Native
American group or culture itself, rather than
property owned by an individual Native American,
and which, therefore, cannot be alienated, appropriated, or conveyed by an individual regardless of
whether or not the individual is a member of the
Indian tribe or Native American organization and
such object shall have been considered inalienable
by such Native American group at the time the
object was separated from such group.
SACRED OBJECTS
Specific ceremonial objects which are needed
by traditional Native American religious leaders
for the practice of traditional Native American
religions by their present day adherents.
For more information on NAGPRA and its
regulations see National NAGPRA
at www.cr.nps.gov/nagpra/
22
VOLUME 45, NUMBER 3 EXPEDITION
peoples have a legitimate interest in the disposition of ancestral Indian
remains in museum collections. NAGPRA is thus broadening American
anthropology by requiring the profession to confront its colonialist past as
a means of envisioning a new and more inclusive future.
WHAT IS NAGPRA?
NAGPRA is the popular acronym for the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (PL 101-601), passed into law on November
16, 1990. Basically, the law provides a legal mechanism for federally recognized Indian tribes, Native Alaskan corporations, and Native Hawaiian
organizations, to make claims for human remains and certain categories of
objects held by museums and other institutions that receive Federal funding. Four categories of objects are identified in the law: associated funerary objects, unassociated funerary objects, objects of cultural patrimony,
and sacred objects. The legal definitions are listed in the sidebar.
Prior to NAGPRA’s passage, many museums and professional archaeological organizations actively opposed the legislation. They argued that
tribes would empty museums of their collections, making it impossible to
mount exhibitions and conduct anthropological research. There is, to this
day, a vocal contingent of scholars who find NAGPRA to be misguided
and would like to see it repealed. But despite dire predictions, NAGPRA
has not meant the end of anthropology or museum studies. It simply
requires that anthropologists develop their research projects in ways that
acknowledge the rights and interests of Native American descendant communities. Significantly, it offers new opportunities for establishing mutually beneficial relationships between museums and tribes.
The popular characterization of NAGPRA as representing an intractable opposition between science and religion fails to acknowledge the
historical and political context of Indian peoples in the United States.
NAGPRA must be understood as part of a unique body of legislation
known as Federal Indian law. In that context, NAGPRA finally recognizes
tribal rights of self-determination in regard to the control of human
remains, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. With regard to
other much larger issues, however, American Indians live today under
competing doctrines of legislation that give them only partial sovereignty
within the United States. Similarly, repatriation and reburial have long
been topics of concern outside the United States, particularly among
indigenous peoples in colonial contexts such as Australia, New Zealand,
South America, and Africa. New national and state laws in these countries,
based upon the NAGPRA precedent, may well emerge.
IMPLEMENTATION OF NAGPRA
The Museum is working assiduously to implement NAGPRA and has
established a Repatriation Office and a Repatriation Committee to assist in
the compliance process. All claims are submitted in writing to the director
who forwards them to the Repatriation Office where they are evaluated for
completeness. Viable claims are then brought forward to the Repatriation
Committee that makes recommendations to the director. In the case of
human remains and associated/unassociated funerary objects, the director
is authorized by the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania
to make repatriation decisions. However, in the case of objects
of cultural patrimony and sacred objects, the Trustees retain the
right to review each case and render a judgment.
The Museum has mailed over 500 letters to federally recognized tribes, informing them of our holdings and extending invitations to consult with us on these collections. As of 2002, 30
formal repatriation claims, seeking the return of human remains
and/or objects defined by the law, have been received and 21
repatriations have been completed. However, because there is
no time limit on NAGPRA and because tribes are entitled to
make multiple claims, we expect this number to increase, as
tribes become more familiar with the law and reprioritize their
needs.
The Museum has also established a state-of-the-art web site,
with a link to our NAGPRA program, to communicate our repatriation efforts to the public and to tribes (see www.museum.
upenn.edu).
John Johnson (Chugach Alaska Corporation) and UPM staff packing the burial canoe.
ANCESTRAL HUMAN REMAINS
AND ASSOCIATED AND UNASSOCIATED
XIUQIN ZHOU
FUNERARY OBJECTS
From the Museum’s experience and as seen nationally, it is clear
that the majority of tribes are concentrating their efforts on the
repatriation of human remains. They are seeking to “bring their
ancestors home.” For John Johnson, the reburial of his Chugach ancestors at their traditional cemeteries is crucial so that his
“elders will once again have peace of mind in knowing that
these significant historical places will be made whole again.”
For Edward Ayau, of Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawai’I Nei,
the reburial of Native Hawaiian ancestors is part of a process of
healing the devastating toll that colonization has wrought upon
Native Hawaiian cultural identity.
The Museum has repatriated approximately 207 sets of
human remains to 12 tribes. The largest repatriation has been
to the Chugach Alaska Corporation of approximately 120
human remains removed from Prince William Sound and Kachemak Bay. Approximately 85 remains were repatriated in 1994,
and an additional 35 human remains were repatriated in 2000.
The second largest set of 73 remains was repatriated to Hui
Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawai’I Nei over a period of eight years.
The first repatriation was of an infant mummy, collected in
1893 from a cave in Hanapeepee Valley in Kauai, in August of
1991. In November of 1996, an additional 62 Hawaiian remains
were repatriated. Eight more remains were returned in October
of 1997, and a final two remains were repatriated in September
of 1999. All of these remains were part of the famous Samuel G.
Morton Collection that was officially transferred to the Museum from the Academy of Natural Sciences in 1997.
WWW.MUSEUM.UPENN.EDU/PUBLICATIONS
23
ment agents illegally removed the communally owned figures
from their designated shrines and sold them on the antiquities
market or donated them to museums. The Zuni elders regard
the violation of their shrines as sacrilege, and they determined
that the return of the figures was necessary to restore harmony
and to protect the Zuni community. In April 1978, they began
their first repatriation discussions with representatives from the
SACRED OBJECTS
Denver Art Museum. On November 12, 1990, the Museum
AND OBJECTS OF CULTURAL PATRIMONY
repatriated one War God to Zuni. As of 1992, the Zuni had sucMany tribes are also actively working to repatriate sacred objects
cessfully repatriated 69 Ahayu:da from 37 different sources.
and objects of cultural patrimony as a means of revitalizing
Since the passage of NAGPRA, the Museum has received
their cultures. Significantly, this is not an attempt to recapture
three claims for three sacred objects, five claims for 1,300
idealized pre-contact lifestyles, but rather is part of a larger
objects of cultural patrimony, and three claims for 103 objects
process of instructing their youth in tribal
claimed as both. Of these, the Museum has
values and a means of “bringing the world
approved three claims, and denied two
into balance.”
claims, with four claims pending and two
The Museum was involved with two
withdrawn.
prominent repatriation cases prior to the
In 1996, the Mohegan Tribe of Uncaspassage of NAGPRA, both of which involved
ville, Connecticut, claimed a wooden mask
objects that subsequently became written
made by Harold Tantaquidgeon as a
into the law as examples of “objects of cul“sacred object.” The Museum enjoys a spetural patrimony.” The first of these is the case
cial relationship to the Mohegan people
of the Iroquois Confederacy Wampum belts
through Frank Speck who grew up on the
once owned by George Gustav Heye, a trusreservation, and sponsored the education
tee of the Museum. These belts are charters
of their revered medicine woman, Gladys
for the existence of the League of the HauTantaquidgeon, at the University of Penndenosaunee and its political relations with
sylvania. After considerable discussion, the
other tribes and groups. In 1899, eleven ConRepatriation Committee denied this claim,
federacy belts held by an Onondaga chief
on the grounds that it did not meet the legal
were secretly sold under uncertain circumNAGPRA definition of “sacred object” and
stances. In 1910, Heye purchased them and
offered it to the Mohegan Tribe as a longtemporarily placed them on exhibition at the
term loan. The Mohegan initially declined
Museum. University of Pennsylvania anthroour invitation, but in 1999, under a new
pology professor Frank Speck immediately
tribal administration, the Tribe contacted
recognized them as the missing Six Nations Mask carved by Harold Tantaquidgeon the Museum to inquire if the offer of a loan
belts and notified his former Penn colleague (Mohegan).
was still standing. A five-year, renewable
Edward Sapir, the chief ethnologist of the
loan contract was drafted, and on August 30,
Anthropological Division within the Geological Survey of Cana2000, Lucy Williams personally conveyed the mask to the tribe.
da. Sapir, in turn, contacted Cameron Scott, the deputy superOn February 17, 2000, the White Mountain Apache Tribe
intendent general of Indian affairs in Ottawa, to press the issue.
submitted a claim for one Mountain Spirit (Gaan) headdress as
Speck’s actions insured that the Onondaga people knew the
a “sacred object” and an “object of cultural patrimony.” The
location of the “lost” belts, and they were eventually repatriated
headdress was on display in the Museum’s “Living in Balance”
to the Iroquois on May 8, 1988, by the Museum of the American
exhibition curated by Dorothy Washburn, in consultation with
Indian-Heye Foundation in New York City.
Edgar Perry of the White Mountain Apache Heritage Center.
The second case is that of the Zuni War Gods, known collecAccording to the tribe’s NAGPRA representative Ramon Riley,
tively as Ahayu:da. Each year, the religious leaders of Zuni Puebthe headdress is “a unique sacred object hand crafted to support
lo create wooden images of the twin war gods, Uyuyemi and
the transformation of an individual Apache (Ndee) girl into
Maia’sewi, and place them in shrines to protect the village. Durwomanhood” and “once such a headdress has been used by the
ing the 20th century, anthropologists, collectors and governGaan spirits it is put away — retired forever as a means for the
24
VOLUME 45, NUMBER 3 EXPEDITION
XIUQIN ZHOU
In addition to the human remains, the Museum has repatriated 750 associated funerary objects and 14 unassociated funerary objects. The majority of the associated funerary objects
were glass beads repatriated to the Chugach Alaska Corporation. One of the unassociated funerary objects was an 8-foot
long burial canoe.
Claims Received Per Year
Repatriation
Claims Received per Year
7
6
perpetuation of the healing and harmonizing derived from the ceremony.”
5
Further, Mr. Riley explained that “the
4
headdress should never have been
removed from its resting place, and its
3
repatriation will contribute to the
2
reestablishment of harmony, health,
and good will.” The Museum deter1
mined that the headdress was an object
0
of central importance to the White
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Mountain Apache Tribe and that it
Human Remains
Funerary Objects
Sacred Objects
Cultural Patrimony
Sacred & Cultural
qualified as an “object of cultural patrimony.” The headdress was repatriated
sons that some tribes have turned to specialized organizations,
to the tribe on January 10, 2002.
such as the Native American Rights Fund, to press their cases.
In 1993, Henry Deacon, chief of the Native Village of GraySimilarly, many museums have had to seek in-house legal counling, requested information regarding the Museum’s holdings
sel or outside attorneys. Terms like “cultural affiliation,” “alienfrom Central Alaska. This was followed by a claim from Denakation,” and “right of possession” pose significant interpretive
kanaaga Inc., working on behalf of the village, for 19 wooden
masks as “objects of cultural patrimony” on May 25, 2000. The
questions. For example, the process of determining cultural
masks had been collected by Frederica de Laguna in 1935 from
affiliation requires tribes and museums to consider multiple
a refuse pit behind a collapsed ceremonial house at Holikachalines of evidence, including geographical, kinship, biological,
ket, an ancestral village of Grayling. According to De Laguna, the
archaeological, linguistic, folklore, oral tradition, historical or
masks were once used in the Mask Dance or the Feast of the
other information, or expert opinion. And yet there is often disMask. The purpose of this ceremony was to insure a continued
agreement over how to weigh these different lines of evidence.
supply of fish and game, by thanking the spirits of the animals.
Another issue is identity politics. NAGPRA requires that
After careful analysis, the Museum found that the masks were
tribes represent themselves through a relationship of shared
“objects of central importance” to the Native Village of Graygroup identity that links them to past groups and geographical
ling and could not have been alienated by any one individual.
regions from whom and where remains and objects were colThe masks were repatriated on October 26, 2002.
lected. However, Indian tribal groups are not static; indeed, like
all communities, most have changed over time, sometimes quite
dramatically, due to a host of social and political factors, and
ONGOING CHALLENGES
these changes mean that traditional connections are sometimes
NAGPRA poses a number of difficult challenges for museums
tenuous or difficult to establish. This is a particular problem
and tribes alike. The most obvious of these is funding. NAGPRA has often been characterized as an unfunded mandate,
with human remains that are extremely old, as in the case of
since there were originally no monies appropriated by Congress
Kennewick man, as well as in those cases where there may be
for its implementation. The funds that have now been made
multiple tribal descendants of a specific archaeological culture.
available are inadequate. In 2000, the National Park Service
An unresolved issue is the final disposition of “culturally uni(NPS) received 112 applications from 76 Indian tribes, Alaska
dentifiable human remains.” Although the NAGPRA Review
Native villages and corporations, and Native Hawaiian organiCommittee was tasked by law to address this issue, it has yet to
zations, and 27 museums, for a total request of approximately
devise a solution. The current draft legislation is clear, however,
$6 million. A total of 45 grants, worth 2.25 million dollars, were
in its intent to repatriate all Indian human remains, regardless
funded by the NPS, of which only 12 were for repatriation.
of their age. For the scientific community, this raises questions
Most large museums, including this museum, have had to supand concerns about the future possibility of learning more
plement grants with funds from their parent institutions or
about important topics such as the peopling of the New World.
other sources.
On a practical level both tribes and museums are concerned
One of the most difficult problems in implementing NAGwith the treatment of human remains, and objects with consolPRA is grappling with the language of the law. Its enigmatic
idants and pesticides. At the turn of the century, it was comdefinitions and the legal discourse it entails are foreign to most
mon museum practice to treat objects made of organic materitribal members and museum employees. This is one of the reaals, especially feathers and fur, with arsenic as a preservative.
WWW.MUSEUM.UPENN.EDU/PUBLICATIONS
25
2002
Wood carvings by Raymond
Dutchman (Anvik).
RE-REPRESENTING NATIVE AMERICANS
The Museum is committed to understanding and documenting the diversity of Native American peoples in the twenty-first
century. This requires not only that we comply with NAGPRA,
but that we also represent the character and vitality of Indian
cultures to the public in new ways. We are doing this through
permanent and traveling exhibitions, publications, new acquisitions, internships, and visiting artists programs.
The Museum currently displays two permanent exhibitions
devoted to Native America. In 1986, Susan A. Kaplan and Kristen J. Barsness curated “Raven’s Journey,” which provides an
introduction to the worldview and lifeways of the Tlingit, Inuit,
and Athabascan peoples of Alaska. In 1995, Dorothy Washburn
curated “Living in Balance,”which gives an overview of the Hopi,
Zuni, Navajo, and Apache peoples of the American Southwest.
26
VOLUME 45, NUMBER 3 EXPEDITION
CONCLUSIONS
Edward Ayau and Ty Tengan (2002) have likened the repatriation efforts of Native Hawaiians to the seafaring legacy of their
ancestors. Just as their ancestors made long journeys, which
involved hardships and challenges, so too do their people today
make long journeys and confront seemingly insurmountable
obstacles, as they work to repatriate their ancestors’ remains.
Extending this metaphor, we suggest that museums are also
embarking upon a long journey to confront their own challenge. This challenge is to redress their history of representing
Indian cultures as “primitive,” “static,” and “dying.” We must
devise new ways of representing indigenous peoples that acknowledge their vitality, resilience, and ongoing struggles to gain
political standing. Because this history is part of a shared American history, we cannot make this journey alone; rather, we must
make it in partnership with indigenous peoples. As the Native
Hawaiians have so eloquently expressed, out of “heaviness”
(kaumaha) must come “enlightenment” (aokanaka).
LUCY WILLIAMS
Baskets, for example, were sometimes dipped in mercury. Today,
we know that many of these treatments are toxic, and they are
no longer used. Unfortunately, early record-keeping was less
than adequate, so it is difficult to know, without expensive testing, which objects were given which treatments. This is a special
concern for Indian peoples who may want to reintegrate sacred
objects and objects of cultural patrimony into their ceremonies.
Some tribes, such as the Hupa of California, are taking the lead
in devising decontamination procedures.
This latter exhibition was prepared with Native consultation
and included a children’s component involving an exchange of
photographs between Philadelphia-area and Pueblo and Navajo grade schools. In addition, the Museum has an active traveling exhibitions program. In 1998, Sally McLendon and Judith
Berman curated “Pomo Indian Basket Weavers, Their Baskets
and the Art Market,” which opened at the Grace Hudson Museum, Ukiah, California, and traveled to the National Museum of
the American Indian in New York and the Mashantucket Pequot
Museum in Connecticut, before being displayed in Philadelphia.
Although funds for new acquisitions are limited, the American Section has made several recent purchases of contemporary Native American art. Some acquisitions have been made as
the result of NAGPRA consultations. Raymond Dutchman’s
modern carvings, for example, were inspired by 100-year-old
masks in the collection that reminded him of events and masking traditions no longer practiced in his own Native Alaskan
community of Anvik.
The Museum is an active participant in the National Museum
of the American Indian’s Artist-in-Residence Program. Many
Native people have a strong adherence to and respect for tradition, innovation, and craftsmanship, and museums that house
old collections are uniquely positioned to offer keys to understanding those traditions in support of modern goals. Choctaw
visiting artist, Jerry Ingram, studied the Museum’s collection to
gain insight into the style and construction techniques of Southeastern shoulder bags. The information gathered has influenced
his work.
Robert W. Preucel (center) is
associate professor of Anthropology at the University of
Pennsylvania and Associate
Curator of North America at
the University Museum. His
research interests include ideology, settlement, and social identity.
His recent work addresses the meanings and material expressions
of the Pueblo Revolt of 1680. He co-directs the Kotyiti Research
Project with the Pueblo of Cochiti.
Lucy F. Williams (right) is keeper of collections, American Section,
at the University Museum. She specializes in the indigenous weaving traditions of the Americas. Her current research focuses on the
production and meaning of contemporary and historic period
Pueblo Indian textiles.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the assistance of the following
individuals in various NAGPRA-related projects: Rebecca Buck,
Eric Cheyfitz, Clark Erickson, Brenda Frazer, Frederica De Laguna, Melissa Freeman, Pam Jardine, John Johnson, Adria Katz,
Pam Kosty, Marilyn Norcini, Alex Pezzatti, Ramon Riley, Jerry
Sabloff, Rita Scheller, Tadd Schurr, Bob Sharer, Laura Smith,
Gabby Vail, Melissa Wagner, Wendy White, William Wierzbowski, and Xiuqin Zhou. We are especially appreciative of the help
of the many assistants who have worked in the NAGPRA
Office: Judith Berman, Eric Borgman, Ned Chatelain, Ginny
Ebert, Pamela Geller, Tamara Johnston, Sharon Misdea, Regina
Rodfuss, Lisa Sherman, Susan Thomas, and Suzanna Urminska.
Stacey O. Espenlaub (left) is NAGPRA coordinator at the University Museum. Her interests include the archaeology of landscape
and GIS.
Janet Monge is an adjunct associate professor of Anthropology at
the University of Pennsylvania and keeper of the Physical Anthropology collections at the Museum. Her interests surround issues of
human origins and human skeletal biology, researching these topics on projects in Europe and East Africa.
FAR RIGHT: WILLIAM WIERZBOWSKI; TOP: BRAD ESPENLAUB
a
FOR FURTHER READING
Ayau, Edward Halealoho, and Ty Kawika Tengan. “Ka
Huaka’i O Na ‘Oiwi: The Journey Home.” In The Dead and
their Possessions: Repatriation in Principle, Policy and
Practice, edited by Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert, and Paul
Turnbull, pp. 171 – 189. London: Routledge, 2002.
Thomas, David Hurst. Skull Wars: Kennewick Man,
Archaeology, and the Battle for Native American Identity.
New York: Basic Books, 2000.
Watkins, Joe. Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian
Values and Scientific Practice. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira,
2000.
Williams, Lucy Fowler. A Guide to the North American
Ethnographic Collections of the University of Pennsylvania
Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Philadelphia,
PA: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology
and Anthropology, 2003.
Beaded bag by Jerry Ingram (Choctaw).
WWW.MUSEUM.UPENN.EDU/PUBLICATIONS
27